IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.MP.Nos.177 & 178 of 2026 Janaki Prabu ...Petitioner Vs.

1. State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Hosur, Krishnagiri.

(Crime No.38 of 2024)

2. Ashwathappa ...Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records in Final Report in CC.No.86 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Hosur and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velan For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh, GA(Crl. Side), for R1

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the Final Report in CC.No.86 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Hosur.

2. Based on the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant, an FIR in Crime No.38 of 2024 came to be registered on the file of the 1^st respondent for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC and on completion of investigation, the final report came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Hosur for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC as against the petitioner and the same was taken on file in CC.No.86 of 2025. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the actual victim in this case and the son of the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant, without possessing any valid license, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner along with his friend and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle, due to which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalised for the period from 04.02.2024 to 10.02.2024 and even after being discharged from the hospital, the petitioner was bed ridden for a period of about six months. He further submitted that the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant is not the eye witness to the occurrence and the 1^st respondent-police, without conducting a proper investigation, filed the present final report against the petitioner, which is wholly unsustainable. He also submitted that the ingredients for attracting the alleged offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC have not been established. Accordingly, he prayed for quashing the impugned proceedings in CC.No.86 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Hosur.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that though the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant is not an eye witness to the accident, there are other witnesses to the occurrence, who would speak about the incident. He further submitted that whether the petitioner is an accused or a victim is a matter for trial and the same cannot be adjudicated before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage and necessarily, the petitioner has to face the trial.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Though very many grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant is not the eye witness to the occurrence and that the petitioner is the actual victim and he was bed ridden for about six months due to the injuries sustained by him at the time of accident, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), the said grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are matter for trial and the same can be appreciated only during the trial and not before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., particularly, when it is the claim of the prosecution that there are other direct witnesses to the occurrence in order to substantiate the prosecution case. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings.

7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought indulgence of this Court to dispe